Education Timeline Essay Example for Free

Education Timeline Essay Education Timeline Antiria Jenkins HIS324: History of American Education Instructor: Timothy Kilgore November 12, 2012 http://prezi. com/vcesi_y4xome/history-of-american-education-timeline/ Education in the United States has faced great changes toward development in the past hundreds of years. At the beginning, during the Colonial Era, the principles of education were mainly based on those already used by European nations at the time. However, the country began to adopt its own approaches toward teachings given different social, political and religious practices (Rippa 9). 1635The first Latin Grammar School (Boston Latin School): Founded on April 23, 1635, in Boston, Massachusetts, it is known as the first public school and oldest existing school in the United States. The Latin grammar curriculum was designed for boys 8 to 15, based on European Schools in a Puritan area. Schools were to prepare boys for college and the service of God. Protestantism believed that education was needed so that individuals could interpret the bible. 1751American Academy founded by Ben Franklin: The demand of skilled workers in the middle of the eighteenth century led Benjamin Franklin to start a new kind of secondary school, thus, the American Academy was established in Philadelphia. American high schools eventually replaced Latin grammar schools. Curriculum was geared to prepare students for employment. Academies eventually replaced the Latin Grammar Schools and some admitted Women. 783Introduction of Noah Webster’s Speller: Noah Webster published the A grammatical Institute of the English language, also known as, â€Å"the blue-back speller. † This was the most widely circulated of the early American textbooks and like Webster’s American Dictionary it strived to establish a national identity as well as the United States’ linguistic and cultural independence of England. As the first popular American textbo ok, the introduction of Noah Webster’s speller stands as a significant event in the history of American education. 817(April 15, 1817) Connecticut Asylum for the Education and Instruction of Deaf and Dumb Persons: The Connecticut Asylum at Hartford for the Instruction of Deaf and Dumb Persons opens. It is the first permanent school for the deaf in the U. S. Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet and Laurent Clerc are the schools co-founders. In 1864, Thomas Gallaudets son, Edward Miner Gallaudet, helps to start Gallaudet University, the first college specifically for deaf students. 824First State-Supported School Established: Originally named the Boston English Classical School and established in 1821, the school was renamed the English High School in 1824 and also, during that year, became the first-state supported common school. The adoption of the English High as a state-supported common school is a significant event in the history of American education as it was, essentially, the first public school. 1855Abolition of Segregation of Schools in Massachusetts: Following the case of Roberts v. Boston, the state of Massachusetts abolished segregation in their schools. The victory would be the first in a long battle lasting nearly an entire century. This was the first law to oppose segregated schools in the United States and is, therefore, a significant event in the history of American education. 1856The First Kindergarten: In the United States Margarethe Schurz founded the first kindergarten in Watertown, Wisconsin, in 1856. Her German-language kindergarten impressed Elizabeth Peabody, who opened the first American English-language kindergarten in Boston in 1860. The kindergarten was much more influential in the United States and in the northern part of Europe which encouraged the National Education Association to begin a kindergarten department in 1874, and later, teachers founded the International Kindergarten Union in 1892. 1896The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago (First Progressive Laboratory):John Dewey, the father of the progressive education, established the first laboratory school for testing the progressive educational method. This would lead to a popular trend in education adopted by schools during the first half of the twentieth century. Progressive education emphasizes cultivation of problem solving and critical thinking skills through hands-on learning activities. 1905 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Founded by Andrew Carnegie in 1905 and chartered in 1906 by an act of Congress, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching is an independent policy and research center. The Foundation encouraged the adoption of a standard system for equating seat time (the amount of time spent in a class) to high school credits which is still in use today. This system is known as the Carnegie Unit. 1939 The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (first called the Wechsler- Bellevue Intelligence Scale): This scale was developed by David Wechsler and is intended to measure human intelligence reflected in both verbal and performance abilities. It introduces the concept of the deviation IQ, which calculates IQ scores based on how far subjects scores differ (or deviate) from the average (mean) score of others wh o are the same age, rather than calculating them with the ratio (MA/CA multiplied by 100) system. Wechsler intelligence tests, particularly the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, are still widely used in U. S. schools to help identify students needing special education. 1944 The Servicemens Readjustment Act of 1944 (GI Bill of Rights): Bill signed into law on June 22, 1944 by President Franklin Roosevelt during World War II. The GI Bill affords military veterans government funding to pursue or continue educational goals following their service. The GI Bill not only compensates veterans for their service, but has also been responsible for the growth of American colleges and universities. 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka: On May 17, 1954, The U. S. Supreme court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that separate schools did not provide equal education to students and therefore banned the segregation of schools nationwide with a ruling of (9–0) decision stated that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal and declared unconstitutional. 1958 Defense Education Act of 1958: The Defense Education Act of 1958 was signed into law on September 2, 1958 by the United States government during the cold war in reaction to the successful launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik. The Soviets’ scientific success motivated the U. S. government to fund the U. S. Office of Education’s establishment of scientifically and mathematically centered curriculum. The act contained ten titles designed to improve the nations schools. 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 signed on July 2, 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson banned discrimination in all federally funded programs and outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. This law helped to further the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education as many schools had continued segregation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 financially, â€Å"cut-off,† institutions, such as public schools, which promoted discrimination of any and all types and gave leverage to the movement. 1965 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed on April 9, 1965 s a part of the War on Poverty. It emphasizes equal access to education and establishes high standards and accountability as well as provides federal funds to help low-income students, which results in the initiation of educational programs such as Title I and bilingual education. 965 The Higher Education Act: The Higher Education Act was signed on November 8, 1965 to strengthen the educational resources of colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and higher education. It increased federal money given to universities, created scholarships, gave low-interest loans for students, and established a National Teachers Cor ps. 1965 Project Head Start: The Head Start program started in the summer of 1965 as an eight week summer program for children from low-income communities going into public school in the fall (Styfco and Zigler, 2003). The program provided preschool classes, medical care, dental care, and mental health services (Kagan, 2002). 1975Education for All Handicapped Children Act now known as The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): requires public schools to make available to all eligible children with disabilities a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their individual needs and requires public school systems to develop appropriate Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for each child which will reflect the individualized needs of each student. 002 The No Child Left Behind Act: On January 8, 2002, NCLB was signed into law. NCLB supports standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills. States must give these assessments to all students at select grade levels in order to receive federal school funding. All students are required to meet the standards establish by NCLB at the accountability of educators. 2004 H. R. 350, The Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEA 2004): reauthorizes and modifies IDEA. Changes, which take effect on July 1, 2005, include modifications in the IEP process and procedural safeguards, increased authority for school personnel in special education placement decisions, and alignment of IDEA with the No Child Left Behind Act. The 2004 reauthorization also requires school districts to use the Response to Intervention (RTI) approach as a means for the early identification of students at risk for specific learning disabilities. RTI provides a three-tiered model for screening, monitoring, and providing increasing degrees of intervention using â€Å"research-based instruction with the overall goal of reducing the need for special education services (Re-authorization, 2004). The history of education has been influenced multiple times over the past years. In some shape, form, or fashion, the many changes have affected many lives, especially those with disabilities. Going from segregation to desegregation, women involvement in education and fighting for equal education of those individuals with disabilities has not only marked historical events but has brought togetherness among all races and genders. Without these historical events in shaping education, the world would be at a standstill. References Dewey, John. 1938 (1963). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books Kagan, J. (2002). Empowerment and education: Civil rights, expert-advocates, and parent politics in Head Start, 1964-1980. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 516-562. Re-authorization of the IDEA 2004. Retrieved November 5, 2012 from http://www. nj. gov/education/specialed/idea/reauth/ Rippa, Alexander. Education in a Free Society. Eighth Edition. New York: Longman, 1997. 3-107. Print. Styfco, S. , amp; Zigler, E. (2003). Early Childhood Programs for a New Century. Reynolds, A. , amp; Wang, M. (Eds. ) The federal commitment to preschool education: Lessons from and for Head Start (pp. 3-33). Washington, D. C. : Child Welfare League of America, Inc.

Managing Global Expansion Essay -- Business Case Study

This paper examines some of the economic and legal factors that can affect a company as it transitions from a private to a publically owned company. This paper, consisting of four sections; describes, discusses, and analyzes the major concerns that the owners of XYZ Construction, Incorporated have on expansion and economics. Section one covers the macroeconomic factors that influence the operations of the company. Section two focuses on the microeconomic factors that XYZ Construction, Inc. should consider in the domestic and global markets. Section three dissects the legal considerations that are relative to equipment leases and electronic contracts. Finally, section four will examine the employment and labor considerations that XYZ Construction, Inc. must consider as the company grows both domestically and internationally. Section One - Operational Macroeconomic Factors Economics is a multifaceted topic, which is integrated into businesses in different ways, while this is a large topic it can be dissected into two categories macroeconomics and microeconomics (Executive, 2011). Executive (2011) defines macroeconomics as the study of the overall economy which covers topics such as inflation, employment rates, and economic expansion. Macroeconomics examines multiple factors, which can affect multiple markets simultaneously (Executive, 2011). For example, the business cycle is a dynamic topic that can affect multiple economies thus making it a huge macroeconomic topic of concern. Executive (2011) defines the business cycle as period of expansions and recessions in which the United States has experienced since the nineteenth century. An expansion period is defined as a time when the production and employment totals ... ...8180 Executive (2011). Executive concepts in business strategy. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions. Ingram, D. (2011, September 07). The effects of minimum wage from a microeconomic perspective [Business and Workplace Regulations]. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/effects-minimum-wage-microeconomic-perspective- 4859.html Odhiambo, N. (2011). The role of interest rate reforms in Lesotho: An empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Business Research, 27(4), 69-77. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/880069378/131A7212E104929119B /3?accountid=28180 Veatch, W. S. (2008). Software leasing revisited: Proposal for a UCC article 2A â€Å"software finance license†. The Journal of Equipment Lease Financing, 26(3), 1-14. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214623771?accountid=28180

Effectiveness of Working Individually Essay

Abstract This purpose of this mathematics classroom-based research study is to answer the following question: Will allowing students to work in groups improve their understanding, or will working individually lead to greater understanding? I have been at a crossroads trying to determine if and when to allow students to work together or to make them work alone because students do not always manage the social aspects of group work so that it will be advantageous to them. Half of the class was instructed that they would complete their work by working in groups; the other half of the class would complete their work by themselves. I compared students’ pretest results to their post-test results. In both categories there was not much change in understanding from the beginning of the unit to the end of the unit, making it difficult to conclude which student category showed better improvements in understanding. Finally, conclusions about further research are discussed. Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning 3 Background This study investigates students’ understandings about mathematics. The purpose of the research is to answer the following question: Will allowing students to work in groups improve their understanding, or will working individually lead to greater understanding? This idea of group dynamics has been studied and researched, but in my experience, I have had mixed results. In some situations, students help each other, their time is spent on task and they benefit from peer interactions. At other times, students spend their time chatting about  things that are not relevant to the topic at hand, and do not get much work done at all. When students in my class do their work independently, most students tend to complete their work, or they will come ask for help if they cannot continue. I have been at a crossroads trying to determine if and when to allow students to work together or to make them work alone because students do not always manage the social aspects of group work so that it will be advantageous to them. I know why group work is not always a positive experience in my classroom. A major element that must be considered is the difficulty of the work that students are expected to complete. Often times, it may be too difficult for students to complete without guidance from the teacher, leading to group and individual frustration. This is a realistic concern despite the fact this mathematics program is mandated by our district for all students at this grade level. Students are expected to complete the coursework with a certain level of independence and success, however, this issue is debatable, as many educators who teach this mathematics program readily express that they dislike it and/or that their students have difficulty doing the work alone. Another valid concern that can affect group work is management of student behavior. Making students stay focused can be better maintained in my classroom if there was more structure and guidelines about the norms and expectations of group work from the onset of the school year as well as continuous monitoring of group dynamics and progress. The participants in this study are from one of the 7th grade math class that I teach. The study was conducted during the 75-minute math periods. There are 28 students, and I am the only teacher in the class. The classroom has 5 large tables where up to six students can sit. Most often, there are usually four or five people at a table and the other students will sit at other places around the perimeter of the room. For example, students will sit at the computer table, two smaller tables, and on a rug. The seating arrangement is important to this study since they were Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning 4 assigned to work independently, and would need to sit alone, and others worked in groups and sat at the large tables. All classes in the school are organized by our school’s principal with the intention to have the students as equally balanced as possible,  considering race, gender, academic achievement, and behavior as the criterion. The socio-economic status of the school is mainly middle class; about 30% of the school qualifies for a free or reduced lunch. The tables and graphs below show the number and percentage of students in each category. Literature Review There is an abundance of research regarding grouping of students as an educational practice. Grouping can be classified into two major types: homogenous- or heterogeneous-ability groups. In either situation, students can work independently or cooperatively. There have been many studies regarding each of these areas that favor heterogeneous-ability groups and cooperative learning groups. Homogenous grouping, or â€Å"tracking†, has been widely used in America’s educational history, and continues to be used today, but studies show that this type of grouping does not benefit students any more than heterogeneous groups (Esposito, 1973; Mills, 1999; Slavin, 1993; Slavin & Karweit, 1985). Kulik’s (1992) analysis of the research noted that when positive gains are made, they should be attributed to adjustments in instruction and curriculum, not because of the grouping arrangement. When the top, middle and bottom groups use the same curriculum, Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning 6 despite their differing ability, there are no academic gains. When students are placed in homogenous classes, the â€Å"top† students show a slight drop in their confidence levels, while the â€Å"bottom† students show a slight increase. When classes used different curricula, there were some positive changes in achievement. The greatest increase noted is when students are put into enrichment or accelerated classes, mainly because of the additional resources and change in curricula offered. A variation of homogenous grouping by class is homogeneous semi-groups within a heterogeneous class. Slavin & Karweit (1985) cited that many researchers found that the latter has more positive academic results than traditional whole-class instruction. Cooperative learning has been a popular alternative method of grouping students instead of tracking. There is empirical evidence that cooperative learning is effective for students (Gokhale, 1995; Slavin, 1995; Yackel, Cobb & Wood, 1991) but Johnson and Johnson (as cited in Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2005) find that, â€Å"the successful application of cooperative grouping in classrooms still eludes many educators.† Therefore, researchers continue to investigate this topic, specifically trying to identify the different variables that  make cooperative learning successful and effective (Cohen, 1994; Slavin, 1995; Yackel, Cobb & Wood, 1991). Without certain elements, cooperative learning is no more effective than traditional methods of instruction and learning (Cohen, 1994; Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2005). One element that has been under research is the effectiveness of cooperative learning based on the type of task the group has to complete (C ohen, 1994). Many tasks can be done individually and do not really require cooperation for understanding. Other tasks, like those that are â€Å"ill-structured† and those where process is more important than outcome, should be used as cooperative learning tasks. Another element that can affect how beneficial cooperative learning can be is the type of interactions that occur between the group members. Cohen (1994) cited many studies that conclude that students’ discussions in groups are good indicators of the achievement that the group will have. In addition, the groups that ask specific questions while working proved to show more gains. Slavin (1995) identified other elements that make cooperative learning beneficial, and those elements are present because of certain theoretical perspectives. The â€Å"motivational perspective† includes group goals and awards as a cornerstone of cooperative learning. This  Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning 7 theory acknowledges that th e objective of group work is for individuals to achieve as a result of being a part of a group. Therefore, in practice, the group can only benefit when the individuals of the group are successful. External rewards are given to groups when the individuals in the group are successful. This is a key element in this theory, and empirical evidence shows that this is a key factor in the effectiveness of all group work. Cohen (1994) acknowledges a compromise of sorts, stating that extrinsic motivational tactics should be used under certain circumstances where group interaction is not enough, for example, when group work is not challenging and could be completed without the group. Other evidence shows that when carefully structured interactions are implemented then cooperative learning can be effective even if there are no extrinsic rewards (Slavin, 1995). Another perspective of cooperative learning labeled â€Å"social cohesion† is more rooted in the interpersonal influence that cooperative learning entails (Slavin, 1995). Under this lens,  an extrinsic reward for the group’s achievement is not necessary because it is believed that the interactions that occur within the group are rewarding enough. This theory is strong in establishing group norms and roles for the members of the group as to enhance group interactions. Slavin’s studies did not find any evidence to support that this perspective on group work produces higher academic gains than traditional instruction, unless it was combined with extrinsic rewards. Other perspectives are also identified that account for mental processing of information that takes place in a cooperative learning setting. The â€Å"developmental perspective† is based on Vygotsky’s and Piaget’s work (as cited in Slavin, 1995) believing that students learn when they interact with others, as long as they are within each other’s zone of proximal development. Large gaps in students’ ability within a group did not yield academic growth. These beliefs alone have not been shown to increase learning, but they do provide the rational behind why cooperative learning is effective. An extension of this belief is the â€Å"cognitive elaboration perspective† which is based on students either providing or listening to detailed explanations of content. O’Donnell & Dansereau and Webb (as cited in Slavin, 1995) found that students who provide elaborate explanations increase the most academically. Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning 8 Methodology The purpose of my research was to determine whether my students gain a better understanding of the mathematics content when they work in groups or when they work individually. I used pretests and posttests as the instrument to determine which situation would be more productive (see Appendix). Questions on the tests were selected from the Mathematics in Context series, which is the mathematics series that my school district has mandated that we use, and from the Philadelphia Math Benchmark, a bi-monthly citywide test. The assessment questions chosen aligned to the objectives and goals of the topic taught during the time frame of this study. They are open-ended questions in which students are told to provide an answer as well as an explanation. I normally use the assessments at the end of a section or unit of study. All participants had to give written parental consent to participate in the study. All students were requested to parti cipate in this study, therefore, before the research was conducted, forms were distributed to the students  (see Appendix). I verbally explained to them that I was a student at a university, and needed to use their work in a project that I had to complete for my courses. Their work would be used to help me determine what teaching strategies worked well. I informed them that their names and other personal information would not be used, just their answers from regular classroom tests and assignments. I went on to say that I needed their and their parents’ permission to use their work in my reports, and it was fine if they did not want to give their permission. If I did not have their permission to use their results, they still had to do all the assignments and assessments, except their answers would not be used in my reports. I asked the students to let their parents know what my intentions were, and for them to return their consent forms promptly. The study began at the same time as a new mathematics topic. I had never taught the math content before, but students had been exposed to the content in previous grades. Before I did any instruction, I administered a pretest with two open-ended questions (see Appendix). The students were advised that this was a test to see what they were able to do before I taught them anything, and that this would not count toward their grade. I also told them that at the end of the lessons, they would take another test to see if they had progressed (the post-test, see Appendix). Over the course of the lessons (which lasted about 2 weeks), I followed the Madeline Hunter model of lesson design. Each day the lesson was structured to include: standards, Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning 9 objectives, anticipatory set, teaching, guided practice, closure, and independent practice (Allen, 1998). It was during the â€Å"guided practice† portion of the lesson that half of the students either worked independently or in random groups (explained below). Half of the class was instructed that they would complete their work for this unit by working in groups; the other half of the class would complete their work by themselves. The students were randomly assigned to work either individually or in groups using Random Sequence Figure 1 – Random Sequence Generator Generator, a program that allows you to generate a random list of a sequence of numbers without repeating any numbers (Haahr, 1998). At the beginning of  the school year, each of my students was given a number (the number has no academic correlation) from 1 to 28 since there are 28 students in the class. The images show how the program lets you choose your sequence of numbers (Figures 1), and will then put those numbers in a random order (Figure 2); I chose from 1 to 28 to represent the 28 students in my class. The first 13 students to appear on the list were assigned to work individually; the other 15 students would work in groups of 3 Figure 2 – Random Sequence Generator List  for the duration of the unit. In cases of absence, groups would work as dyads. To eliminate any concerns about ability, gender,  social grouping, which are variables that were not included in this study, students who worked in groups were shifted daily into different groups throughout the duratio n of the lessons. I managed that by putting each of the 15 students’ numbers on slips of paper and pulling three students at a time to form groups for that day. Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning 10 At the end of the unit, students were given a post-test as a means to measure their progress. The post-test included the same two questions that were on the pretest and one additional open-ended question (see Appendix). All questions were chosen from the Mathematics in Context series and the Philadelphia Math Benchmark, as explained above. The objective was to determine what students could do before instruction on the pretest, and compare the results to those on the post-test. Findings Investigating if there is a difference in understanding when students work alone or if they work in groups naturally led to comparing students’ work. There were several comparisons that are made below, for example, pretest to post-tests, and individuals’ grades to groups’ grades. My expectations before I conducted any research were that most of the students would show some type of growth from the pretest to the post-test whether they worked individually or in groups. I anticipated that those students who worked in groups would be better able to explain their answers than students who worked alone. My conclusions about the cause of change in student understanding from the beginning of the unit to the end is  based on analyzing the change from the pre-test results to the post-test Figure 3 – Averages Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning 11 results (see Figure 3). The pretest had two questions, while the post-test repeated those same two questions plus one additional question. I compared the pretest results to the post-test results according to the averages for each question. It is difficult to conclude which student category showed better improvements in understanding because everyone started out with such high pretest averages. I expected much lower pretest scores so this was surprising and very much unexpected. In both categories, the students’ results for the first two questions show that there was not much change in understanding from the beginning of the unit to the end of the unit, although, those who worked in groups did show a slight increase in their understanding for question 1. Question #3 of the post-test reveals the most interesting and perhaps confusing results. This question was not included on the pretest. The average grade for those who worked individually is higher than those who worked in groups (see Figure 3), but neither category of students showed a proficient level of understanding. Again, this was surprising and unexpected. A closer look at this question reveals that students’ results varied whether they worked in groups or individually (see Figure 4). Neither group showed a strong tendency to score in any specific grading category. However, the students who worked individually did have a greater  Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning 12 percentage that got the question correct by showing and/or explaining their work, and therefore received an â€Å"advanced† grade. Furthermore, those who worked in groups had a higher percentage that got the question wrong, receiving a â€Å"below basic† grade. Based on this data, the st udents who worked individually did have a better understanding of how to solve this problem than those who worked in groups. Conclusions Based on the results of my research, it is difficult for me to  conclude whether having students work in groups or individually helped improve students’ understanding in my classroom. The data I collected did not show that there was a strong improvement in understanding for either group dynamic. One question did favor those who worked individually, but that conclusion cannot be extended to the other questions. There are a few statistical factors that caused my results to be inconclusive. The students’ pretest scores were high, showing that they understood those particular objectives before any instruction took place. In order for the data to show some type of conclusions, one or both of the following things would have had to happen. There would have to be growth from the pretest to the post-test, or the post-test results would have to consistently favor the group workers or the individual workers. My data did not do this. In retrospect there are several things that I would do differently. The first thing would be to vary the pretest and post-test questions. Gokhale (1995) did a similar research study and used different questions in order to prevent students from becoming â€Å"test-wise†. I would also extend the length of the study so that I could repeat the study over several units. I do not think that I had enough data to draw sound conclusions. Both of these changes would make me feel more comfortable and more confident about the results of this study; however they would not necessarily alter my findings. The research about cooperative learning offers suggestions that might yield different results. Research shows that my question about the effectiveness of cooperative learning needs to be modified to investigate whether certain factors of cooperative learning are effective. The research shows that certain elements can or cannot exist which will probably affect whether cooperative learning is working. Certain things like external rewards, group interactions, ability  Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning 13 levels within the group, group tasks, group structure and norms, and elaboration/explanation are influential variables that can be studied. Based on the research about cooperative learning and on my results from my study, I conclude that group work in my classroom is not beneficial to my students’ achievement. I am one of those educators that was eluded as to how to make cooperative learning work. My class falls into the category where group work is no more effective than traditional methods. I am not satisfied with this position, and many  teachers may be in this same situation. To further my practice, and perhaps other teachers’ as well, I would make adjustments to the way I structure cooperative learning in my classroom to include elements suggested from the current research. A good place to begin would be to analyze the theoretical perspectives suggested by Slavin (1995) to see what perspectives best match my own philosophy of teaching. I would then apply some of the fundamental elements that are associated with that belief and repeat my study. Instead of comparing individuals to students that worked in groups, I would investigate which elements of cooperative learning were more effective in my classroom. References Allen, T. (1998). Some basic lesson presentation elements. Retrieved January 2007, from Humboldt State University http://www.humboldt.edu/~tha1/hunter-eei.html Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research. 64, 1-35. Retrieved January, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00346543(198723)57%3A3%3C293%3AAGASAI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5 Davidson, N., & Kroll, D.L. (1991). An overview of research on cooperative learning related to mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 22, 362-365. Retrieved January, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00218251%28199111%2922%3A5%3C362%3AAOOROC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P Esposito, D. (1973). Homogeneous and heterogeneous ability grouping: Principal findings and implications for evaluating and designing more effective educational environments. Review of Educational Research. 43, 163-179. Retrieved January, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00346543(197321)43%3A2%3C163%3AHAHAGP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23 Gokhale, A.A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7, No.1, Retrieved January 2007, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v7n1/pdf/gokhale.pdf Haahr, M. (1998). Randomized sequences. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.random.org/sform.html Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning 15 Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, CT. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED350777). Retrieved January 2007, from http://edres.org/eric/ED350777.htm Mills, R. (1997). Grouping Students for Instruction in Middle Schools. ERIC Digest, Retrieved January 2007, from http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-1/grouping.html Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, Oregon., (2005). Research based strategies: Cooperative grouping. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from Focus on Effectiveness Web site: http://www.netc.org/focus/strategies/coop.php Slavin, R. E. (1993). Ability grouping in the middle grades: Achievement effects and alternatives. The Elementary School Journal. 93, No. 5, 535-552. Retrieved January, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00135984%28199305%2993%3A5%3C535%3AAGITMG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O Slavin, R.E. (1995). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Retrieved January 2007, from http://www.aegean.gr/culturaltec/c_karagiannidis/20032004/collaborative/slavin1996.pdf Slavin, R. E. , & Karweit, N. L. (1985). Effects of whole class, ability grouped, and individualized instruction on mathematics achievement. American Educational Research Journal. 22, No. 3, 351-367. Retrieved January, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00028312%281985232%2922%3A3%3C351%3AEOWCAG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K Wood, T. (1993). Chapter 2: Creating an Environment for learning mathematics: Social interaction perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 6, 15-20. Retrieved January, Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning 16 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=08839530%281993%296%3C15%3AC2CAEF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 22, 390-408. Retrieved January, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00218251%28199111%2922%3A5%3C390%3ASIAASO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6&origin=JSTORpdf

Computer Systems - 1247 Words

Assignment Front Sheet| Learner name|Assessor name| |Chagitha Hewage | Date Issued|Completion date|Submitted on| 15th August 2013|15th November 2013|| Qualification|Unit number and title| HND in Computing and Systems Development | 02-Computer Systems| Assignment title|Computer Systems – Unit 2 | In this assignment you will have opportunities to provide evidence against the following criteria.Indicate the page numbers where the evidence can be found | Criteria reference|To achieve the criteria the evidence must show that the student is able to:||Task no.||Evidence| P2.1.1|Explain the role of computer systems in differentenvironments||T1.1||| P2.1.2|Explain the hardware, software and peripheralcomponents of a computer†¦show more content†¦Provide reasons on your recommendation for each product. This task provides evidence for P2.1.3| Task 022.1 Submit a report that contains your specification of the hardware and software required for the Billing Section of Electricity board. This task provides evidence for P2.2.1, P2.3.12.2 Prepare a system specification for one PC by considering client requirements, system requirements, system components, configuration, time, tools and resources, alternatives eg. processor types, backup options for Electricity board Help desk. Your answer should evaluate the suitability of suggested system for help desk people. This task provides evidence for P2.2.2| Task 03 3.1 You will need to make sure that the system is working correctly. You are required to create a test plan (see Figure one) that tests the main hardware and software components. Once completed, carryout out your documented tests.Any test failures should be explained using screen shots.Figure OneTest PlanTester:Test Location: Test Date:Asset Number (If Applicable):Test No:|Purpose:|Test Input:|Expected Result:|Actual Result:|Pass/Fail:||||||||||||||||||| This task provides evidence for P2.3.2Task 044.1 To do computer maintenance of Electricity Board management has suggest you to doShow MoreRelatedComputer Systems : Computer System1143 Words   |  5 PagesComputer systems analysts are popular careers due to the evolution of new technology. There will always be a need for a systems analyst to help merge technology with business (Ku, 2014, pg. 33). â€Å"A computer systems analyst studies, organizes, designs, and maintains information systems to aid organizations function more efficiently and effectively† (Ku, 2014, pg. 32). Focusing on designing and organizing information, helps create a better understanding of the overall project or concept. The worldRead MoreComputer Systems And The Role Of Computer System Essay898 Words   |  4 Pages Contents Task 1: Understand the function of computer systems 2 1.1 Explain the impact of computer systems in social and work, evaluating the role of computer system in different environment? 2 1.2 Computer components 3 1.2.1 Purpose of some system utilities (Defragmenter, HDD cleanup etc) 9 1.2.2 Defragmentation 9 1.2.3 Cleanup tools 10 1.3 Compare different types of computer systems and the suitability of usage in different environment 11 2 Task 2 13 3 References 14 -Social Media Metrics: HowRead MoreComputer Systems And The System Essay1062 Words   |  5 PagesIntroduction Computer systems advanced quickly when considered relative to how long systems have been around. The advancement of systems allowed for threads and processes to evolve to become more complex, and more efficient. The systems programs were executed on also became more efficient in the way they run programs. Systems that could only execute one program at a time, and share CPU cycles advanced to the point of parallel processing where threads are executed across many CPU cores. The securityRead MoreA Study Of Computer System1581 Words   |  7 PagesNowadays, computer is able to help in a wide range. Such as Economics, Physics, etc. Since 1987, a study of computer system to support clinical decision making has been proposed by Edward H. Shortliffe[5], with the rapid development of computer science, this approach is applied more and more often and not only in clinical situation. As a tool, computer system could be used to collect data, make statistics and calculation with no problem. Acc ording to Sprague study, Decision Support System has beenRead MoreComputer Operating Systems And The Computer System828 Words   |  4 PagesThe computer operating system is one of the biggest changes we are seeing in today’s world. With the rise of the cloud, digital software delivery and applications, the computer operating system is playing catch up to these new trends. The center of the computer as always been the operating system and the Graphical User Interface that comes with it. Computer operating systems have come from a past of no User interface and being a command line base to the modern day Windows 8 and Mac OS’s of applicationRead MoreComputer System929 Words   |  4 PagesOverview of the Computer System This lesson includes the following sections: †¢ The Parts of a Computer System †¢ Looking Inside the Machine †¢ Software: Bringing the Machine to Life The Parts of a Computer System †¢ What is a Computer? †¢ Hardware †¢ Software †¢ Data †¢ Users The Parts of a Computer System - What is a Computer? †¢ A computer is an electronicRead MoreQuestions On Computer Systems System3059 Words   |  13 PagesTask 1-Computer Systems Internal System Unit Components: Central processing unit A processor or also known as a micro-processor is a small chip that goes inside a computer and some other electronic devices. The job of a processor is very important as it has to receive input and provide the appropriate output. This component can handle trillions of calculations per second. The main processor in a computer system is called a central processing unit which handles all the simple instructions thatRead MoreComputer Algebra Systems ( Cas )752 Words   |  4 PagesIntroduction About CAS Calculator Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) were first introduced in the early 1970s on large frame computers and are now accessible on a hand held CAS calculator that is increasing in popularity and affordability for high school students (Kendal, 2006). The CAS calculator is a multi-representational too with symbolic, graphical and numeric capabilities and a large variety of procedural skills that include calculus, drawing graphs, and the execution of numerical, vector, matrixRead MoreComputer System : A Computer Repair Company984 Words   |  4 PagesBeginning a computer fixing company could quickly be thought about one of the fastest expanding home services in the US. There might be concerns about what abilities you will require, various other than computer system skills you will certainly need in beginning a computer repair company, and also the steps included in getting it off the ground. You will need to comply with a sensible, cautious steps and also plan extremely carefully making certain you recognize exactly what you have to do beforeRead MoreComputer System Failure1940 Words   |  8 PagesTherefore, all work is done by computer the management time can be reduced. The time savings can be developed in the management because computer system easier, faster and accurate. Term of find the information can available with easier through the computer with internet connection exists. Company employees can improve their own performance in parallel with their employment through increased knowledge and experience against the current issues with the use of computers. Quality of work is maintained